Quote Originally Posted by Bailey Guns View Post
No, it's not. There are rules we all have to follow in society. If you break those rules there are consequences. Sometimes the consequences for breaking the rules means you lose a right that is otherwise guaranteed to LAW ABIDING citizens. When I talk about civil liberties I'm assuming most people understand that applies to the law-abiding. If you're a convicted felon or if you've been convicted of DV, you no longer have those liberties...in other words, it doesn't apply to you. I don't see that as middle ground at all.

It's also assumed that people know rights are not generally absolute rights.

This pretty much sums up exactly what I meant and exactly the difference between someone who loses liberties based on their actions and someone who loses liberties based on fear and paranoia of others:
BG,

Not sticking up for anyone, but I am somewhat familiar with an issue that was described upthread wherein a person loses some of their civil liberties through wrongful accusation of DV. It happens a LOT. In fact, your description of "someone who loses liberties based on the fear and paranoia of others" fits perfectly with those instances where a person is wrongfully accused of DV and out of a sense of overprotection, our legislators have all but required LE to charge the person, resulting in ensuing loss of their civil rights. I know this is not directly on-point with the conversation, but as a tangential consideration and since it had been mentioned by others, I wanted to add a bit of clarification.